Dump traditional rhythmic terminology: a thought experiment

[stubbsonic]

When teaching music classes or private students, I often defend our system of naming pitches. The topic pops up when a kid first learns that a white note can have a "sharp" or "flat" alter-ego. And then I break it to them that there can be double-sharps and double-flats. "Why?!" they justifiably protest. And I try to be understanding, "I know. It sounds pointlessly confusing, but it really is a pretty clever way to make the notation look neat. Trust me, it could have been MUCH worse."

However, when it comes to our system of rhythm, there are a couple aspects that I find pointlessly annoying. And I can't possibly defend them to my students. I sometimes fantasize about a better a few important changes.

Here are my two gripes, and then a couple possible solutions:

Gripes:

1. Our names for note values are based on 4-beats. Leaving aside the implication that measures "should" be four beats long, or that the very suggestion of it may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. It makes the note-value-names sound needlessly confusing. A half-note gets two beats, an 8th note gets a half-beat.

SOLUTION: Note symbols can look the same, and work the same, just change the names we call them, basing the new names on one beat as whole, rather than 4. Thus our current solid-notehead with a stem would be referred to as a whole note, as it gets a whole beat. A hollow notehead with a stem is a double-note, gets 2 beats. A solid-notehead with a single flag or beam is a half-note, and gets a half-beat. There will be other time-scales, like cut-time, where the reader simply knows to scale the values, and that would be less removed from the other names. And as far as reading goes, we wouldn't need to change anything.

2. Time-signatures don't really follow a consistent definition. We're told that, generally, the top number (numerator) is the number of beats, and the bottom number defines what kind of note gets a beat. But in reality, the top number describes a number of "units" per measure, and the bottom number describes the symbol that will represent one "unit". But the units aren't always 1:1 with beats, and we must simply know those conversions. There are time-signatures that follow the traditional definition. but there are some very common ones that don't.

SOLUTION: Because of Gripe #1, we'll need to revise the standard time-signature model. We need to provide at a glance the three pieces of information we need. First, we continue to need a description of how many actual beats there are per measure, but do it for real. Doing this, context will mostly answer the rest of the questions. Second, (optionally) we can include a note about how beats are divided by default. And third, we need to know what kind of scaling might be employed, (as with cut-time, or 6/8).

[edit: We could simply put the number of beats per measure (as before) in the numerator, but strictly the number of beats (6/8 would show a "2"). For the denominator, if it is a "4" (i.e., a solid-notehead with stem), we can leave it blank. If it is anything other, we know there is time-scaling. A dotted-solid-notehead with stem, could be shown as a 1.5, a hollow-notehead with stem would be a 2. So 6/8 would be shown as 2/1.5 meaning 2 beats, a 1.5 note gets a beat. ]

Let's look at some examples.

3/4 or 4/4 These types of time-signatures could simply be shown as 3 and 4 respectively. You see how many beats there are per measure, binary division, and there is a 1:1 scaling.

3/8, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 These all have beats divided into three. So this involves all three time signature requirements, a more accurate description of beats per measure, a description of how beats are divided, and a scaling number.

6/8 = 2/3/3:2 two beats per measure, beats divided into three, scaled 3:2 (3 notes in the space of 2)

9/8 = 3/3/3:2 three beats per measure, beats divided into three, scaled 3:2 (3 notes in the space of 2)

3/2 = 3/2/1:2 three beats per measure, beats divided into binary divisions, scaled 1:2 (one note in the space of 2)

The visual format of the time-signature would have to be such that you could quickly see how many beats first, and perhaps symbols could be used to describe divisions and scaling.

[FMiguelez]

I can totally see what you mean from the point of view of students. It is currently complex and potentially confusing. They have reasons to feel frustrated, especially at the beginning.

I see what you mean in point 2. However, for your point 1, if I may suggest, something tells me your students would appreciate and understand more thoroughly our current notation state if you introduce them to the fascinating history and tradition behind notation.

Just the other day, I was reading the first chapter of Gardner Read's notation book, and it explained in beautiful and concise detail how the shapes and the names of the notes and the note values evolved and came to be what they're today. Especially if you show your students their "real" names as used in Europe (even more annoying traditional names, like breve, semibreve, etc). It all came from how they divided a brevis, semi-brevis, etc. From ancient neumes dating to the Greeks to modern eight note figures! The long time it took them to discover the pentagram, even simple lines, and the slow note-shape evolution is quite fascinating.

At least that might help them make some sense out of this if they understand the underlying reasons for #1?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

1. Note values are based on 4-beats. ...

(solution):

A solid-note with a stem is a whole note, gets a whole beat. A hollow note-head with a stem is a double-note, gets 2 beats. A solid-notehead with a flag or beam is a half-note, and gets a half-beat.

Isn't that still essentially based on 4 beats?

2/3/3:2; ... 3/3/3:2; ... 3/2/1:2

And you thought your students were confused before! lol Of course, this is only a thought experiment, but frankly I never had any problem understanding time sigs or rhythmic structures as they exist today and in 14 years of teaching dancers and non-musicians at a university, as well as teaching high school kids for 6 years and countless private students, I don't remember a single student have and tremendous difficulty in understanding those aspects of notation.

[FMiguelez]

The Gif version is even better!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Yeah, well it's bad enough I'm probably gonna get busted for this. If you want to post the GIF, go for it. Then po' Frodo will have to moderate this section all by his lonesome.

[FMiguelez]

The problem I see is that, even if Stubbsonic's solutions proved to be much better than the current situation, and even of they were generally accepted by academia, they would almost be impossible to change against the formidable weight of tradition. It would probably take centuries for them to be assimilated on an important global scale.

In that same book, the author proposes a lot of changes and improvements to a lot of aspects of notation (long time since he wrote it), and I don't think anything new he suggests has stuck significantly so far.

But who knows what notated music will look like in 500 hundred years? Maybe like the above pic?

[stubbsonic]

Isn't that still essentially based on 4 beats?

I didn't explain it very well. The current basic "unit" is 4-beats, a "whole" is four beats. In the revised system, a "Whole" is one beat.

2/3/3:2; ... 3/3/3:2; ... 3/2/1:2

And you thought your students were confused before! lol Of course, this is only a thought experiment, but frankly I never had any problem understanding time sigs or rhythmic structures as they exist today and in 14 years of teaching dancers and non-musicians at a university, as well as teaching high school kids for 6 years and countless private students, I don't remember a single student have and tremendous difficulty in understanding those aspects of notation.

Ultimately, it is I who dislikes the way it is set up. I've never had any trouble understanding it, and few students had trouble. I just don't like the inelegance of it.

My 3 number thing looked bad, but in reality, a 4/4 would become 4, 3/4 would become 3. It is where the ternary divisions come in, that some symbols could make it more clear.

The reason to make a change is that it reduces questions that might come up in sight-reading like, Is this section in 6 or 2? or 4 or 2? etc.

The problem I see is that, even if Stubbsonic's solutions proved to be much better than the current situation, and even of they were generally accepted by academia, they would almost be impossible to change against the formidable weight of tradition. It would probably take centuries for them to be assimilated on an important global scale. "

Understood. That's why it had to be "branded" as a thought experiment.

The concept that the basic unit is "four beats" is baked into our brains from our earliest music classes. It may or may not be the cause for why so much music is in 4, but it probably doesn't help.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I gotta be honest, man. I've been practicing music for 56 years and you have totally lost me on the logic of what you're proposing. I find the way music is currently structured to be quite elegant. Nevertheless, I'll keep an eye on the thread to see if something connects.

I like that you're thinking different. In and of itself, that is commendable, IMO. AS my old boss used to say...

[cuttime]

I think time sigs are related to TEMPO. What else to do with a 3/2 or 12/8? Yes, not an answer to the hypothetical question, but an answer nonetheless.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I think time sigs are related to TEMPO. What else to do with a 3/2 or 12/8?

I agree. The feel of a piece is often determined by the time sig, as it informs the performers on how the phrases are constructed and/or thought of by the composer (at least in traditional Western Classical tradition it does).

[stubbsonic]

I think time sigs are related to TEMPO. What else to do with a 3/2 or 12/8? Yes, not an answer to the hypothetical question, but an answer nonetheless.

Yes, 3/2 and 12/8 (as well as 6/4) are all different. And in some cultures, you may have different players playing something where one is in 12/8 and another is in 6/4 (3 + 3).

So much is left to some combination of interpretation and/or prior experience. Or having to already know the piece, or getting instruction from a conductor. What is perhaps not always clear, and must be gotten from additional instructions are tempo, what the primary felt-beat is, and in some cases how the beat is divided. This could be important for example if I have an important entrance after one measure of rest. If the time-sig told me a beat division, and then I heard another part played in that empty measure, I'd be able to hear "Ah yes, there are some beats divided into 3" and here I go!

There are additional hints we get outside the time-sig itself. A tempo marking, or a tempo marking with a note-value dotted-quarter=96, or "Slow 2" or "Jaunty 4".

If a piece was in 12/8 (in 4), the indication of a 4 alone, would tell the reader, it has 4 beats per measure, you can see there are twelve 8ths or 4 dotted notes. Or if it is a swung piece, and it could just say, 4/3/ (4 beats, divided in three, no scaling-- i.e., it is not scaled like 12/8, so solid-noteheads sans dots are still one beat). We'd still want the usual indication that the 8ths are swung.

As someone who plays Zimbabwean music, it often has a ternary group that is swung. It's a bit like a dotted 8, 16th, 8, but not really. Just a little longer first note and third note, and a bit quicker 2nd note. It really is a lovely feel. It's referred to as swing, in the states. I don't know if they have a word for it in Zimbabwe or not.

[mikehalloran]

It looks like trying to solve a non-problem in an ancient way that has never worked. You are attempting to write time/tempo.

As Deems Taylor pointed out decades ago, writing music doesn’t work. Music is drawn. It was the development of notation that allowed music to become more complex and not the other way around.

[stubbsonic]

This thread was "provoked" by a recent release of Patterning 2. They chose to use traditional note values, and time-signatures in this very modern app, and it presents all kinds of problems in the app based on our customary interpretations.

6/8 means that dotted quarters are the basis for the tempo beats, but most of these apps will still keep the quarter note as the basis. So you have to think in 3/4 as you work. Not impossible, but annoying.

When using a time-signature to determine the length of the pattern, it imposes further limitations. It just seemed like a missed opportunity.

If you don't think this topic is worthy of discussion, you are welcome to direct your attention elsewhere.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Of course, members are free to ignore any discussion. If, OTOH, one is only seeking responses in support of one’s thesis, the internet may not be the best place to propose it. Similarly, those with contrary views may also be successfully “ignored” but doesn’t that negate the whole concept of “discussion?”

Getting back on topic... I still fail to see the “problem” that is being presented. A simple scan of the printed music provides the “clues” as to how it is intended to be performed. Personally, I find the proposed system of notation and meter representation to be awkward and more difficult to decipher that traditional systems. In fact, it reminds me more of plainsong notation (Gregorian Chant) than a “new” method of notation.

[FMiguelez]

As someone who plays Zimbabwean music, ...

Awesome! That sounds quite interesting. I don't think I've heard that music before.

I'm reading your website now....

...it often has a ternary group that is swung. It's a bit like a dotted 8, 16th, 8, but not really. Just a little longer first note and third note, and a bit quicker 2nd note. It really is a lovely feel. It's referred to as swing, in the states. I don't know if they have a word for it in Zimbabwe or not.

In México a lot of folk music does exactly what you mentioned above, combining compound and simple times, even at the same time by different musicians, so you get that sort of "clave" feel of takutu takutu taku taku taku.

And what about real odd time? Our current system is not particularly inviting to use them.
Maybe that's a reason why so much folk music around the world is so rhythmically free, adventurous and interesting, since they do it by feel or even to accomodate lyrics, rather than following alien western academic tradition. Thankfully! (for the sake of music variety/diversity).